Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:119578 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD (Sl. No.8) Court No. - 78 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 28316 of 2024 Applicant :- Nirmala Chauhan And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Anand Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party :- Dinesh Yadav,G.A.,Mahesh Kumar Yadav,Pradeep Kumar Hon'ble Anish Kumar Gupta,J. 1. Heard Sri Anand Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Pradeep Kumar, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and Sri Vinay Prakash Sahu, learned AGA for the State. 2. The instant application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking quashing of order 03.08.2024 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Azamgarh as well as the entire proceeding of Complaint Case No. 3736 of 2018 (Nannhe Ahmad vs. Nirmala Chauhan and others), under Sections 419, 420 and 406 IPC, P.S. Mubarakpur, District Azamgarh, pending before the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Azamgarh. 3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that they are bona fide purchaser, who have purchased the land in question on 03.02.2018 from one Chhamma @ Samrunnisha who was the recorded owner in the revenue record at the relevant time. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that there is a civil dispute between the parties with regard to the said property and a suit for cancellation of sale deed has already been filed by the opposite party no.2 against the applicants. Accordingly, no offence whatsoever is made out against the applicants herein. Therefore, he seeks quashing of the entire proceeding of the instant case. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 submits that the predecessor in interest of the applicants herein had earlier filed a civil suit for permanent injunction against the opposite party no.2. the said suit was dismissed by the trial court vide order dated 29.10.1997, against which an appeal was preferred, which was also dismissed. A the predecessor in interest of the applicants have failed to establish their title in the said suit. Therefore, they have no right title or interest to execute the sale deed with regard to the same land in favour of the applicants herein. Therefore, a prima facie case is made out against the applicants herein who in collusion with their vendor Chhamma @ Samrunnisha had purchased the said land, in which the said Chhamma @ Samrunnisha do not have any right or title. Therefore, in collusion with the said Chhamma @ Samrunnisha, they committed the offence under Section 420 IPC, for which the complaint was filed by the opposite party no.2 against the applicants as well as the said Chhamma @ Samrunnisha, in which the applicants herein have also been summoned for the offence under Section 420 IPC. It is further pointed out that applicants herein have also filed an application for their discharge in the instant case, which was rejected by the trial court vide order 03.08.2024, against which the applicants have also preferred a criminal revision before the Sessions Court, which was also rejected. Therefore, no interference is called for in the instant case. 5. Learned AGA also submitted the same submission made by learned counsel for the opposite party no.2. 6. Having heard the rival submission made by learned counsel for the parties, this Court has carefully gone through the record of the case. From the record, it is apparent that the complaint under Sections 419, 420 and 406 IPC was filed by the opposite party no.2 against the applicants as well as one Chhamma @ Samrunnisha on 19.05.2018 and after recording the statements of witnesses and having found the prima facie case, the trial court summoned the applicants vide order dated 05.02.2020 for the offence under Section 420 IPC. Thereafter the applicants appeared before the trial court and were released on bail and charges were framed against them. Thereafter, they had moved an application for discharge. 7. As per the complaint lodged in the instant case on behalf of the opposite party no.2 has stated in the complaint filed by him is that the vendor of the applicants was party to a civil suit for injunction filed by them against the opposite party no.2. The said suit was dismissed vide order dated 28.10.2019 holding therein that the plaintiffs in the said suit failed to establish their possession. Thus the plaintiffs were not in possession of the property in question for which the injunction was sought by him. Therefore, the suit for injunction was rejected. It was also categorically recorded in the said suit that the opposite party no.2 and other defendants in the said suit were in occupation of the said land and their constructions existed over the said land. 8. In view thereof, the said suit for injunction was dismissed by the trial court against which an appeal was filed, which was also dismissed. Therefore, with regard to the disputed land, the possession of the defendant in suit was found to be in existence. Thus the co-accused Chhamma @ Samrunnisha was not having any right title or interest to sell the same in favour of the applicants herein and the said Chhamma @ Samrunnisha had sold the said property to the applicants herein. 9. By considering the material facts with regard to the findings recorded in the said civil suit and from the aforesaid prima facie case established against the applicants herein, this Court do not find any illegality in the summoning order as well as in the order rejecting the discharge application moved on behalf of the applicants. 10. Accordingly, the instant application is dismissed. Order Date :- 22.7.2025 Ashish Pd. (Anish Kumar Gupta,J.) Digitally signed by :- ASHISH PRASAD High Court of Judicature at Allahabad